What is the core holding of Walter v. Lane?

Reporters who take, edit, and prepare shorthand notes into readable text can be treated as authors, so their work can be protected by copyright.

What doctrine does the case support?

It supports the ‘sweat of the brow’ approach: hard work, skill, and judgment can justify copyright even if the words came from a speech.

Did the House of Lords overrule the Court of Appeal?

Yes. By 4–1, it reversed the Court of Appeal and recognised the reporters’ authorship and copyrights.

Is originality required under the 1842 Act?

The 1842 Act did not use the word ‘original’, but this case later influenced how ‘originality’ was read into UK copyright law.

Who delivered the speeches that were transcribed?

The Earl of Rosebery. The Times reporters took shorthand, later adding punctuation, revisions, and corrections before publication.

Walter v. Lane

Walter v. Lane (1900)

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Published: 01 Nov 2025

CASE_TITLE: Walter v. Lane PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: reporters as authors, sweat of the brow SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: originality, shorthand notes, [1900] AC 539

Quick Summary

This case says that reporters who turn shorthand notes into readable reports, with punctuation and corrections, can be treated as authors. The House of Lords backed a ‘sweat of the brow’ approach: skill, labour, and judgment can earn copyright protection, even if the words came from a speech.

Keywords: reporters as authors, sweat of the brow, originality, shorthand

```

Issues

Are reporters’ transcribed and edited notes “original” for copyright?
Can such reporters be treated as authors entitled to copyright?

Rules

Sweat of the Brow: Copyright can protect works produced with skill, labour, and judgment, even when the underlying words are not new.
Under the Copyright Act 1842 (pre-1911), the statute did not use “original,” but effort-based authorship was recognised.

Facts (Timeline)

Speeches Recorded

The Earl of Rosebery’s talks were taken down in shorthand by The Times reporters.

Editing Work

Reporters later added punctuation, revisions, and corrections to produce readable reports.

Publication

The reports were published in The Times, owned by Arthur Fraser Walter.

Use by Respondent

A book, Appreciations and Addresses, used those reports largely as printed in the newspaper.

Litigation Path

The Times sued for infringement; the Court of Appeal sided with the Respondent; appeal went to the House of Lords.

Timeline illustration for Walter v. Lane

Arguments

Appellant (The Times)

Reporters used skill and labour to create publishable text.
That effort makes them authors; copying was infringement.
Public reading of speeches does not remove their rights in the prepared reports.

Respondent (Lane)

Words were Lord Rosebery’s; reporters did not create the content.
Transcription is mechanical; no true originality.
Public speeches belong to the public domain to print.

Judgment

The House of Lords (4–1) reversed the Court of Appeal. It held that the reporters were authors under the Copyright Act 1842. Their punctuation, corrections, and editorial work involved skill and judgment. Therefore, the newspaper had copyright, and copying those reports could infringe.

Ratio

Effort-based authorship: Where skilled labour turns raw speech into publishable text, copyright can attach to the reporter’s version—even if the words were spoken by another person.

Why It Matters

Validates newsroom labour: editing and preparing text can create protectable rights.
Shows early UK acceptance of effort-based originality, later shaping copyright doctrine.
Signals that public speeches do not automatically allow free copying of edited reports.

Key Takeaways

Reporters’ edited transcripts can be copyrighted.
‘Sweat of the brow’ protects skill, labour, and judgment.
Public delivery ≠ free use of a crafted written report.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “HEARD → HONED → HOLDING”

HEARD: Speech is delivered and noted.
HONED: Reporters craft it—punctuation, edits, corrections.
HOLDING: That crafted text earns copyright.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Do reporters’ edited transcripts qualify for copyright and make them authors?

Rule: Effort and skill applied to produce readable text can ground authorship (1842 Act context; ‘sweat of the brow’).

Application: Shorthand notes were transformed with punctuation and corrections for publication.

Conclusion: Reporters were authors; House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal.

Glossary

Sweat of the Brow: Doctrine where effort and skill can justify copyright protection.
Originality: In modern terms, a modest degree of skill/judgment; in 1842 statute, not expressly used.
Authorship: Legal status of the person whose skill and judgment produced the protected work.